Talk:Eddington

Proposed merge
Eddington and Edington are clearly the same name spelt differently. Is there any reason why they cannot be dealt with on the same page? At present users need to know the spelling accurately before finding what they want – the potential confusion is illustrated by the presence of Arthur Stanley Eddington on both pages. A combined page would surely be clearer and easier to use, and would not be excessively long. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support merge. Capital idea. One should redirect to the other, and the page should have an h2 head (==) for each spelling, so that the differentiation, and the page organization, is instantly obvious at first glance upon landing on the page. — ¾-10 02:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that if we are going to merge the pages, the spellings should be mixed throughout – if I can't remember exactly how the name is spelt I'm not going to know which part of the page to look at. Richard New Forest (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. This page already needs more than one screen to display, and should not be made any longer. Merger also goes against WP:MOSDAB, for the very good reason (among others) that it is much harder to maintain pages where the possible combinations start multiplying. The correct solution here is to add a hatnote to both pages, to draw immediate attention to the alternative spelling, as recommended at WP:MOSDAB. Can use the see also template for this. --NSH001 (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't see how it goes against WP:MOSDAB, which is saying something else: that (for example) "Edington" items should not appear on a separate "Eddington" dab page (except in a "See also" section) – so Arthur Stanley Eddington was correctly removed from Edington by you. It does not say anything against having a page covering alternative spellings of the same thing.  In fact, WP:DPAGES specifically covers this situation and says the opposite, that a dab page can cover varying spellings of the same thing.  As to length, this would still be a shortish dab, and paging down is a lot less bother than clicking to another page altogether.  Richard New Forest (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * #Misspellings recommends precisely what we have now, no more, no less, except that I've replaced the "see also" section by a hatnote to address your concern. DPAGES allows similar spellings on the same page, but says it's a matter of editorial judgement. I prefer the shorter page, and the greater ease of maintenance from having two pages. Let's wait and see what others have to say. --NSH001 (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What I said was that a merge does not go against WP:MOSDAB as claimed. The MOS allows either arrangement but does not recommend either: I'm proposing a merge as being clearer and easier to use.  Richard New Forest (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Various good points here. Given this new input, I guess I would support either merge or no-merge, as long as the functional goals are achieved in any case. To me, the functional goals include making sure that the hurried reader realizes what s/he is looking at, but also not allowing it to be an obstacle either. That is, gently make them realize, whether by one method or another, that the 1-d-vs-2-ds distinction exists, but without forcing them to painfully trip over it. Essentially, a click-through end result equivalent to if an AI had said to them, "Hey, did you realize that the number of ds is not what you thought it was? But that's OK, I know what to suggest as the things that you may have meant, so I'll still send you straight to what you want." — ¾-10 23:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul Eddington
I think you missed the British actor Paul Eddington in the disambiguation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Eddington) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.113.163 (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a link to Eddington (surname) where Paul is included. --Wire723 (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)